Evidence for the Resurrection

[Goose]

In my opinion, when determining the truthfulness of Christianity virtually everything is secondary in importance to the resurrection of Jesus Christ (the Rez). Paul made this clear when he said in 1 Corinthians 15:14, "if Christ has not been raised, then our message means nothing and your faith means nothing." I believe the truthfulness of Christianity hangs primarily on the Rez.

I also believe there is a solid case for the Rez that meets a reasonable burden of proof for matters of history. Equal, at least, to that which we accept for other pivotal events in ancient history accepted as true and rarely questioned.

As indicated by the spectrum of the below quoted scholars and historians, I propose we can be reasonably certain some historical "facts" are probably true regardless of our philosophical predispositions. We can then look at theories that account for those facts.

The Methodology:

A "fact" shouldn't necessarily need to pass all of the listed criteria to be considered probable. Failing any one particular criterion does not necessarily make the fact false. Indeed very few, if any at all, ancient historical "facts" we rarely question would adequately pass all the requests of such a rigorous criteria as set out below. However, a fact that fails to pass a single criterion we would be justified in believing it to be improbable. Passing one or two should be sufficient to have the "fact" be at least considered probable. If a fact passes three I think we can be confident that it is very probable and so on. This methodology is not fool-proof of course as it is open to our biases and ultimately subjective to a degree. However, this seems to be the only way (I know of) to establish a reasonably objective treatment of evidence - i.e. pass the evidence through a standard set of criteria using a consistent methodology that can be applied to ALL ancient events. So, using criteria such as (but not limited to)...

• 1. Eyewitness attestation
  2. Early attestation (the earlier the better - written during the lifetime of possible eyewitnesses is preferred)
  3. Multiple independent attestation (independent does not mean non-Christian, but rather independent from other sources)
  4. Enemy or neutral source attestation
  5. The Principle of Embarrassment (If it's embarrassing or harmful to the case it is very likely that it is authentic or actually happened. It's very unlikely to have been propaganda simply “made up”)

Marcus J. Borg, a liberal theologian and "fellow" of the Jesus Seminar wrote, "The logic is straightforward: if a tradition appears in an early source and in another independent source, then not only is it early, but it is also unlikely to have been made up." Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus (1999), p. 12.

Historian Paul Maier notes, "Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable." Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks a Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church (1991), p. 197.


As a side note, I’m confident we can reconcile alleged contradictions in the NT, demonstrate traditional authorship of the Gospels/Acts (i.g. The disciple Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew and so on. Just as we would for any other ancient document, see here ), and demonstrate the synoptics were written before 70AD. However, we'll forgo debate over the preceding to avoid rabbit trails and make it more of a challenge for the Rez theory. So, for the sake of argument in this thread we will assume:

• 1. The Bible is errant and not inspired by God. We'll consider it merely a collection of ancient writings.
  2. The Gospels/Acts are technically anonymous and may or may not be eyewitness accounts.
  3. The Gospels and other Christian/non-Christian accounts contain minor errors and contradictions in secondary details.
  4. The Gospels/Acts were written after 70AD, but no later than 100AD.
  5. Mark was the first Gospel written. The authors of Luke and Matthew used some of Mark as a source for their Gospels.

We could submit many, but to start, here are 5 "facts" that should pass enough of the listed criteria to be considered probable:

FACT 1. Jesus’ crucifixion and death

• a) Early (and enemy) attestation from the Apostle Paul - (1 Thessalonians 5:9-10, 2:15; 1 Corinthians 1:23, 2:2 and early creedal passages in 1 Corinthians 15:3 - ca. 50-60AD)
  b) Multiple attestation in all four Gospels and the Book of Acts (ca. 70-100AD)
  c) Enemy/neutral attestation from Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18:64 - 96AD)
  d) Enemy/neutral attestation from Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15:44 - ca. 115AD)
  e) Enemy/neutral attestation from Greek satirical writer Lucian (The Death of Peregrine, 11-13 - ca. 150AD)
  f) Enemy/neutral attestation from Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a - ca. 200AD)
  g) Principle of Embarrassment applies to the humiliating suffering and death of a supposed Messiah and the Son of God (as well as Principle of Dissimilarity from Jewish anticipation of a military type leader in the Messiah).

Atheist NT scholar Gerd Lüdemann acknowledged, "Jesus' death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable." Gerd Ludemann, The Resurrection of Christ, pg 50.

The critical NT scholar and Jesus Seminar co-founder John Dominic Crossan wrote, "Jesus’ death by execution under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For, if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixion, we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus...We have, in other words, not just Christian witnesses but one major Jewish and one major pagan historian who both agree on three points concerning Jesus: there was a movement, there was an execution because of that movement, but, despite that execution, there was a continuation of the movement." John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, pg. 5

Crossan also said, "Despite the differences between the studied impartiality of Josephus and the sneering partiality of Tacitus, they agree on three rather basic facts. First, there was some sort of a movement connected with Jesus. Second, he was executed by official authority presumably to stop the movement. Third, rather than being stopped, the movement continued to spread. There remain, therefore, these three: movement, execution, continuation. But the greatest of these is continuation." John Dominic Crossan, The Essential Jesus, p. 7.

John P. Meier wrote, "For two obvious reasons practically no one would deny the fact that Jesus was executed by crucifixion: (1) This central event is reported or alluded to not only by the vast majority of NT authors, but also by Josephus and Tacitus...(2) Such an embarrassing event created a major obstacle to converting Jews and Gentiles alike...that the Church struggled to overcome..." (John P. Meier, "The Circle of the Twelve: Did It Exist during Jesus' Public Ministry?", Journal of Biblical Literature 116 [1997] p. 664–665).


FACT 2. The tomb was discovered empty.

• a) Early attestation from Paul - he implies an empty tomb (1 Cor. 15:3-4)
  b) Multiple attestation from all four Gospels (the very early Pre-Markan Passion source probably contained the empty tomb)
  c) The disciples were accused of stealing Jesus’ body by unbelieving Jews - indirect enemy confirmation that the tomb was empty (Matthew 28, Christian apologist Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 108 - ca. 150AD; Christian apologist Tertullian De Spectaculis 30 - ca. 200AD)
  d) The principle of embarrassment applies to the empty tomb reported as having been discovered by women
  e) We have no record of Jesus’ corpse being produced only accusations that the disciples stole the body.
  f) Setting the stage for the empty tomb was the honourable burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimethea (another fact we could admit as number 6 - but won't as it isn't really necessary to do so). It is attested by all four Gospels. As well Paul mentions the burial of Jesus(1 Cor 15). It also is strengthened by the Principle of Embarrassment where a Jewish member of the council, rather than a disciple or family member, that condemned Jesus was reported as honourably burring Jesus. This would have been offensive to the disciples and as such is unlikely to be a fabrication.

Liberal theologian John A. T. Robinson commented on the burial of Jesus, "[it is] one of the earliest and best–attested facts about Jesus." John A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God (1973), p. 131.

William Wand, a past Oxford University church historian wrote, "All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favour [of the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other grounds than that of scientific history." William Wand, Christianity: A Historical Religion? (1972), p. 93-94

NT critic D. H. Van Daalen wrote, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions." D.H. Van Daalen, The Real Resurrection(1972), p. 41.


FACT 3. The apostles sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead and then appeared to them. So sincerely that some were willing to endure persecution and possibly even death because of this belief:

Claims of appearances to the disciples:

• a) Early (and enemy) attestation from Paul (1 Cor. 15:4-8)
  b) Multiple attestation from all four Gospels (even without the later addition of 16:9-20, early attestation in Mark's Gospel predicts the Rez and appearances in 8:31, 9:31, 10:34 and suggests there will be appearances made by Jesus 14:28, 16:6-7)
  c) Multiple attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 1-5, 10, 13, 17)
  d) Possible neutral/enemy attestation from Tacitus (he may be inadvertently providing evidence that the apostles at least believed Jesus appeared to them in Annals 15:44 when he says, "...[Christianity] thus checked for the moment [by the crucifixion of Jesus], again broke out not only in Judea...")
  e) Possible neutral/enemy attestation from Josephus (he may be reporting that the disciples at least believed Jesus appeared to them in Antiquities 18)
  f) The Principle of Dissimilarity applies to the notion of a man/Messiah resurrecting from the dead before the end of time was contrary to Jewish belief and therefore reduces the odds it was "made up."
  g) Principle of Embarrassment applies to the evidence that some disciples at the first instance did not believe but had doubts that Jesus was alive (Matthew 28:17, Luke 24:36-38, John 20:24-25).

Persecution and death of some disciples:

• a) Early attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 12 - death of James brother of John)
  b) Early attestation from Clement of Rome (1 Clement 5 - ca. 95AD)
  c) Attestation from Ignatius (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 3:2-3 - ca. 110AD)
  d) Attestation from Polycarp (Letter to the Philippians 9 - ca. 110AD)
  e) Attestation from Dionysius of Corinth (ca. 170AD - quoted by Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 2:25:8)
  f) Attestation from Tertullian (Scorpiace 15 - ca. 200AD)
  g) Attestation from Origen (Contra Celsum 2:56,77 - ca. 230-250AD)

Atheist NT scholar Gerd Ludemann said, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ." Gerd Ludemann, What Really Happened to Jesus? A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, (1995) p. 80. (It should be noted Ludemann believes these were visions)

Paula Fredriksen, a sceptical historian and scholar of religious studies, said in an interview with Peter Jennings (ABC) entitled The Search for Jesus in July 2000, "I know in [the disciples] own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That's what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that's what they saw. I'm not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn't there. I don't know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something."



FACT 4. Paul, an enemy and persecutor of the church (Acts 8:3, 1 Cor. 15:9, Gal. 1:13) was transformed and became a prolific apostle because of his belief that a risen Jesus appeared to him. He was persecuted and reported as martyred.

Appearances of Jesus to Paul and his conversion:

• a) Early, multiple and eyewitness attestation from Paul himself (1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1, Phil. 3)
  b) Multiple and early attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 9, 22, 26)

Paul’s suffering/martyrdom:

• a) Early, multiple and eyewitness attestation from Paul for his suffering (2 Cor. 11, Phil. 1)
  b) Multiple and early attestation from Book of Acts (ch. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23)
  c) Early attestation from Clement of Rome (1 Clement 5)
  d) Attestation from Polycarp (Letter to the Philippians 9:2)
  e) Attestation from Tertullian (Scorpiace 15 and also quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 2:25:8)
  f) Attestation from Dionysius of Corinth (c. 170AD - quoted by Eusebius in EH 2:25:8)
  g) Attestation from Origen (Commentary on Genesis as quoted by Eusebius in EH 3:1)

FACT 5. James, brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3) and sceptic of His claims before the appearance of Jesus to him, was transformed and became a leader in the Church in Jerusalem. He was reported as martyred.

• a) Principle of Embarrassment applies as Jesus' own family and brother James were described as sceptical prior to appearances (multiply attested - Matthew 13:57, Mark 3:21, 6:3-4, John 7:4-5)
  b) Jesus appeared alive to James after His death (early and enemy attestation from Paul - 1 Cor. 15:7)
  c) James is later described as an apostle by Paul(Gal 1:19) and leader in the early church in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9,12 and Acts 15)
  d) Suffered and martyred - Enemy/neutral attestation from Josephus (ca. 96AD - Antiquities 20), further multiple attestation from Hegesippus (ca. 160AD - as quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 2:23), and Clement of Alexandria (ca. 180-200AD as quoted by Eusebius in EH 2:1).

Note that none of these 5 facts are supernatural or hard to believe on their own. They are all well attested with early and multiple sources. By any reasonable historical methodology these should be considered solid facts. Keep in mind on their own each fact presented does not build a strong case for the Rez. However, it is as a collective unit we must consider the evidence. We are looking for the best explanation that accounts for ALL the evidence. I posit the theory that God resurrected Jesus from the dead best accounts for ALL the evidence and combines explanatory power and scope given the context of Jesus' life and the claims made of Him and by Him.

Question for debate: Is the Resurrection the best explanation for ALL the evidence (i.e. the five facts presented)? Or, is there a better competing theory that accounts for ALL the evidence?


Additional considerations and requests:
1. Persons who side with the weight of evidence, what the evidence suggests, and cogent arguments supported by good evidence could be described as taking a rational position. We would be justified in deeming "irrational" a position that denies evidence with out good reason and opposes strong arguments to side with weak unsupported arguments. On this, we can all agree.

2. As history deals more with degrees of probability rather than absolute certainty I would suggest the following. A single theory that has explanatory scope and power, given the context of surrounding events, and accounts for ALL the evidence should be considered more probable over a compilation of several theories stacked upon one another in an ad hoc manner. Especially if those ad hoc theories are speculation rich and evidence poor.

3. Please supply the methodology/criteria for questioning any one of these 5 facts (or any other evidence one wishes to refute or admit for consideration). We can then apply this methodology to other ancient historical facts. This will help us determine if the objection has credibility or is merely stemming from a bias against either the supernatural or Christianity. Simply making the objection, for example, that we cannot trust anything written by a Christian because they were biased is very problematic. Applying that overly simplistic criterion to the rest of ancient history would call almost all of it into question (even most of modern history).

I'll look forward to reading the responses.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Warning

Rude name calling has no place in debate. Refrain from making this kind of comment about other debaters.

Listen douche rocket, I'm not in the mood to watch you xxx up a thread that should have ended a long time ago. Concentrate on forming an argument and leave being clever to those who are qualified.

[Cathar1950]

Moderator Warning

Rude name calling has no place in debate. Refrain from making this kind of comment about other debaters.

Listen douche rocket, I'm not in the mood to watch you xxx up a thread that should have ended a long time ago. Concentrate on forming an argument and leave being clever to those who are qualified.

I was taken back by hiis use of "rocket" as it would indicate an ablity to get off the ground or at least fly. Sorry Mack I couldn't resist.

The name calling is not needed as some posts say enough with one line about the posters.

[LittlePig]

Goose

In my opinion, when determining the truthfulness of Christianity virtually everything is secondary in importance to the resurrection of Jesus Christ (the Rez). Paul made this clear when he said in 1 Corinthians 15:14, "if Christ has not been raised, then our message means nothing and your faith means nothing." I believe the truthfulness of Christianity hangs primarily on the Rez.

A basic problem with your initial statement is that not all Christians hold the resurrection to be a literal, historical event or a physical resurrection. So rejecting the literal, historical, physical event does not demolish all Christianities of either today or of the first century.

In my encounters with Christian apologetics, this kind of a statement is the preamble to a long 'bootstrap' process of rationalizing the Christian belief system. If one accepts that the resurrection occurred, then that would supposedly lend credence to Jesus as messiah, which in turn would supposedly lend credence to the claim that some of his followers were privy to YHWH-revealed spiritual truths, and in turn were inspired in some fashion, and in turn gave us an authoritative belief system in writing which was guarded through a Spirit-led process of canonization and later transmitted to us mostly unscathed through copyists.

IMO, this is a kind of Rube Goldberg machine of the philosophical realm. By forcing the acceptance of a mysterious, private event from the ancient world along with a particular explanation of the event, one attaches an ever expanding circle of unsubstantiatable supernatural propositions utlimately forcing the denial of other, more empirically substantiated propositions. Personally I have never known anyone to be converted by such a process. Typically it is an exercise performed by Christians who have come to need better reasons to believe than what they were converted by or grew up with and have no real problem with all the a priori accepted philosophy that is stacked on top of the 'Rez.'

So a second problem with your initial statement is that Christianity is not built on the single, tiny pebble foundation of the 'Rez.' It is a philosophy that competes with other philosophies attempting to provide the 'best fit' to the entire experience of our existence. It is neither confirmed nor disproven by the acceptance or denial of a single supernatural claim (except maybe that of God).

I also believe there is a solid case for the Rez that meets a reasonable burden of proof for matters of history. Equal, at least, to that which we accept for other pivotal events in ancient history accepted as true and rarely questioned.
As indicated by the spectrum of the below quoted scholars and historians, I propose we can be reasonably certain some historical "facts" are probably true regardless of our philosophical predispositions. We can then look at theories that account for those facts.

I'm sure you know that finding truth in history is not always simple and straightforward. Using a consistent methodology is definitely better than assigning truth willy-nilly, but it does not mean that the methodology will always fit the sitution or that there is sufficient information for quality results. There is always a bit of subjectivity in applying historical methodolgy, and in the case the New Testament, there is a lot of subjectivity, and a lot of significant unknowns.

Not all historical claims can be treated equally. I noticed that in this thread there was a lot of back and forth about whether or not claims of supernatural events should even be considered. I have no problem with considering them, but I think it is simplistic and naive to assume they are as believable as non-supernatural claims. You often made mention of Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon. We accept that proposition as fact on very little evidence. We accept it in part because we have no reason not to. However, if our sources said that Caesar crossed the Rubicon by walking on water and not sinking, or that he calmed a storm that threatened to drown his army, and that these were signs that the gods approved of his decision to break Roman law, would you continue to accept this proposition as true? If not, why not? Although we cannot demonstrate that every claim of supernatural events is false, we all recognize that humans have a tendency to either falsely ascribe supernatural causes to natural events or to out-and-out lie and invent supernatural stories for a variety of reasons. Therefore, 'discriminating against' supernatural propositions is not an unreasonable a priori bias. It is more a matter of empirically-based probability, a recognition of human tendencies. Some might even call it common sense. Our experience tells us we should be suspicious, very suspicious, of such claims.

How much evidence is required to establish the 'truth' of a supernatural event in ancient history? I don't know. It is even difficult to create a methodology that works with modern claims of the supernatural. I think it basically boils down to attempting to explain the event in natural terms until it can be reasonably shown that there is no natural explanation, yet. Supernatural dupery is terribly common and occurs because people are too quick to accept 'magic' of some kind to account for that which their rational minds cannot immediately explain. In the case of ancient history, the investigation often only goes as far as the claim itself because there is nothing beyond the claim to examine.

In the case of the New Testament texts, there are a few things that should be mentioned that affect the believability of the claims found there. In your consideration #3 you say:

Simply making the objection, for example, that we cannot trust anything written by a Christian because they were biased is very problematic. Applying that overly simplistic criterion to the rest of ancient history would call almost all of it into question (even most of modern history).

I agree with you here. That is overly simplistic. But it is also overly simplistic to consider the New Testament texts to be conventional histories of the period, and I think you acknowledge that to some degree. Paul's letters are extremely polemical, and what history he does mention is to prove himself right in some theological crisis. The gospels themselves are very polemical, although they achieve this through the subtler means of story.

There seems to have been a great deal of controversy about Christian doctrine and practice very soon after Jesus' death. That would be only natural considering that Jesus did not leave behind clear theology or teachings on how Christianity was supposed to be. In the accounts in Acts, issues surrounding Jews & Gentiles almost split the church. In various epistles we see this same crisis, and we also see what seem to be references to other 'deviant' practices and even gnostic versions of Christianity. Outside of the New Testament texts, we find references to other versions of Christianity that must have originated very early if not right alongside the version we see pictured in the New Testament texts. Interestingly enough, these other versions of Christianity, the Ebionites and various Gnostic groups, seem to diverge most significantly on the issue of the nature of Jesus, his death, and his resurrection, the very issue debated here in this thread. Maybe this is one of the primary motivations for the writing of the gospels we have now, to combat other versions of Jesus floating around at the time. That is apparently why the canon was formed, to combat those other versions of Christianity floating around via 'divergent' texts.

So we have an atmosphere of extreme controversy surrounding what Jesus really signified, which Christianity was true, and whether or not Jesus was physically raised from the dead, and I think we should take what we read in the New Testament with a lot of salt because it would only be natural for the writers to be very biased. This is something seen in the writings of the later church fathers, and there is no reason to think it would be absent in the texts in question. There is also the smaller consideration of pseudepigraphy which seems to have been a common occurrence during this time. Although not necessarily an indicator of a purely dishonest author, the pervasive notion that 'end-result' and 'impact' of a text might have priority over authenticity is something to keep in the back of one's head. These were not peer-reviewed documentaries dedicated to journalistic integrity. They were attempts to build religious community and define orthodox belief.

Beyond this particular bias, we have the issue of the religious nature of the texts. As with other religious texts, we should not be surprised to find symbolism, metaphors, poetic treatments, hyperbole, and even purely invented myth. Overly coincidental or symbolic uses of numbers, thematic retellings of stories, dramatic moralizations of events, etc. should all be warning bells that what is being read may deviate from literal history. The problem with supernatural events has already been mentioned.

So the larger context of New Testament history and the nature of the writings themselves demands that we consider these texts differently from a conventional history of the period.

The Methodology:

A "fact" shouldn't necessarily need to pass all of the listed criteria to be considered probable. Failing any one particular criterion does not necessarily make the fact false. Indeed very few, if any at all, ancient historical "facts" we rarely question would adequately pass all the requests of such a rigorous criteria as set out below. However, a fact that fails to pass a single criterion we would be justified in believing it to be improbable. Passing one or two should be sufficient to have the "fact" be at least considered probable. If a fact passes three I think we can be confident that it is very probable and so on. This methodology is not fool-proof of course as it is open to our biases and ultimately subjective to a degree. However, this seems to be the only way (I know of) to establish a reasonably objective treatment of evidence - i.e. pass the evidence through a standard set of criteria using a consistent methodology that can be applied to ALL ancient events. So, using criteria such as (but not limited to)...
1. Eyewitness attestation
2. Early attestation (the earlier the better - written during the lifetime of possible eyewitnesses is preferred)
3. Multiple independent attestation (independent does not mean non-Christian, but rather independent from other sources)
4. Enemy or neutral source attestation
5. The Principle of Embarrassment (If it's embarrassing or harmful to the case it is very likely that it is authentic or actually happened. It's very unlikely to have been propaganda simply “made up”)

We might need to add one more to the list:

6. Non-supernatural (remember, failing any one particular criterion does not necessarily make the fact false, simply less qualified for belief)

Another thing I noticed in this thread is that when an attempt was made to provide an alternate explanation of some event described in the New Testament, you tended to rebut it with the charge of 'speculation' and 'ad hoc'-ery and a lack of 'explanatory scope and power'. This is in accord with your additional consideration #2:

2. As history deals more with degrees of probability rather than absolute certainty I would suggest the following. A single theory that has explanatory scope and power, given the context of surrounding events, and accounts for ALL the evidence should be considered more probable over a compilation of several theories stacked upon one another in an ad hoc manner. Especially if those ad hoc theories are speculation rich and evidence poor.

Although I agree that many of the suggestions made were ad hoc or poorly presented (this is not a particularly scholarly forum), any attempt to provide an explanation of New Testament history that departs from the New Testament texts will have to be speculative or ad hoc to some degree. With a large, detailed story told only from one side of the argument, any attempt to rework the whole story will be highly speculative because it will have to sacrifice many of the details of the contradicted story and invent details not contained in the contradicted story. Any attempt to be more respectful of the details of the contradicted story will be ad hoc in nature because you aren't reworking the whole story, only parts of it that are amenable to other interpretations. You are simply putting lipstick on discrete sets of details, and all those different colors of lipstick won't make a pretty lady. I think the process of story revision has to start with ad hoc possibilities that later clump together into a bigger, cohesive, alternate story. In the case of the New Testament, I don't think we have enough information to completely bridge the gap between ad hoc attempts and large-scale speculation to arrive at 'explanatory scope and power'. But I do think some interesting alternate stories can be imagined.

Despite the problems I see with this approach to 'proving' Christianity via the 'Rez,' I will attempt to address the rest of your post in what small ways my amateur historical investigations allow. I have bolded the 'facts' below that I find questionable.

We could submit many, but to start, here are 5 "facts" that should pass enough of the listed criteria to be considered probable:
FACT 1. Jesus’ crucifixion and death
a) Early (and enemy) attestation from the Apostle Paul - (1 Thessalonians 5:9-10, 2:15; 1 Corinthians 1:23, 2:2 and early creedal passages in 1 Corinthians 15:3 - ca. 50-60AD)
b) Multiple attestation in all four Gospels and the Book of Acts (ca. 70-100AD)
c) Enemy/neutral attestation from Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18:64 - 96AD)
d) Enemy/neutral attestation from Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15:44 - ca. 115AD)
e) Enemy/neutral attestation from Greek satirical writer Lucian (The Death of Peregrine, 11-13 - ca. 150AD)
f) Enemy/neutral attestation from Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a - ca. 200AD)
g) Principle of Embarrassment applies to the humiliating suffering and death of a supposed Messiah and the Son of God (as well as Principle of Dissimilarity from Jewish anticipation of a military type leader in the Messiah).

FACT 2. The tomb was discovered empty - all evidence comes from the Pauline side of the debate
a) Early attestation from Paul - he implies an empty tomb (1 Cor. 15:3-4)
b) Multiple attestation from all four Gospels (the very early Pre-Markan Passion source probably (speculation?) contained the empty tomb)
c) The disciples were accused of stealing Jesus’ body by unbelieving Jews - indirect (or invented polemic) enemy confirmation that the tomb was empty (Matthew 28, Christian apologist Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 108 - ca. 150AD; Christian apologist Tertullian De Spectaculis 30 - ca. 200AD)
d) The principle of embarrassment applies to the empty tomb reported as having been discovered by women (Jesus is shown to honor women, very egalitarian movement for the time, thematic)
e) We have no record of Jesus’ corpse being produced only accusations that the disciples stole the body. (We only have stories from one side of the argument)
f) Setting the stage for the empty tomb was the honourable burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimethea (another fact we could admit as number 6 - but won't as it isn't really necessary to do so). It is attested by all four Gospels. As well Paul mentions the burial of Jesus(1 Cor 15). It also is strengthened by the Principle of Embarrassment where a Jewish member of the council, rather than a disciple or family member, that condemned Jesus was reported as honourably burring Jesus. This would have been offensive to the disciples and as such is unlikely to be a fabrication. (or invented or altered for polemic - respected witness of burial, these kinds of things can go lots of ways)
ADDED:
g) Ebionite and Gnostic Christians for some reason believed Jesus was not physically raised from the dead despite originating very close in time and geography to the earliest group of Christians. This could be due to Jesus not being buried in a tomb, Jesus' body not disappearing from the tomb, or no experience of later appearances by Jesus. The physical resurrection could be a theological development that arose as groups diverged.

FACT 3. The apostles sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead and then appeared to them. So sincerely that some were willing to endure persecution and possibly even death because of this belief: (we do not know they died in defense of the physical resurrection)

Claims of appearances to the disciples:
a) Early (and enemy) attestation from Paul (1 Cor. 15:4-8) (private experience used to claim leadership role, something he fights to maintain)
b) Multiple attestation from all four Gospels (even without the later addition of 16:9-20, early attestation in Mark's Gospel predicts the Rez and appearances in 8:31, 9:31, 10:34 and suggests there will be appearances made by Jesus 14:28, 16:6-7) (We only have stories from one side of the argument)
c) Multiple attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 1-5, 10, 13, 17) (Same author as Luke, no need to mention twice)
d) Possible neutral/enemy attestation from Tacitus (he may be inadvertently providing evidence that the apostles at least believed Jesus appeared to them in Annals 15:44 when he says, "...[Christianity] thus checked for the moment [by the crucifixion of Jesus], again broke out not only in Judea...") (no doubt some Christians did believe in the resurrection)
e) Possible neutral/enemy attestation from Josephus (he may be reporting that the disciples at least believed Jesus appeared to them in Antiquities 18) (no doubt some Christians did believe in the resurrection)
f) The Principle of Dissimilarity applies to the notion of a man/Messiah resurrecting from the dead before the end of time was contrary to Jewish belief and therefore reduces the odds it was "made up." (hey, where does all that crazy gnsotic stuff come from?)
g) Principle of Embarrassment applies to the evidence that some disciples at the first instance did not believe but had doubts that Jesus was alive (Matthew 28:17, Luke 24:36-38, John 20:24-25). (or slightly discredits apostles who were not fully in the Pauline group, or creates thematic consistency about belief, etc., etc., very subjective)
ADDED:
g) Ebionite and Gnostic Christians for some reason believed Jesus was not literally raised from the dead. This could be due to no experience of later appearances by Jesus.
h) The Ebionites apparently rejected Paul as an apostate but may have accepted other apostles as closer to their own position. This is reminiscent of the Paul vs Circmcision Group debate. It could very well be that the proto-Ebionites were part of or similar to the Circumcision Group. If James and Peter were more aligned with this group as Paul seems to indicate, then they may also have been more closely aligned with the Ebionite understanding of Jesus as opposed to their representation in later gospels aimed primarily at Pauline Christians. I suspect there was a wide range of views held by the earliest Christians, and they were probably all loosely mingling together until lines were firmly drawn to distinguish particular heresies.

Persecution and death of some disciples:
a) Early attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 12 - death of James brother of John)
b) Early attestation from Clement of Rome (1 Clement 5 - ca. 95AD)
c) Attestation from Ignatius (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 3:2-3 - ca. 110AD)
d) Attestation from Polycarp (Letter to the Philippians 9 - ca. 110AD)
e) Attestation from Dionysius of Corinth (ca. 170AD - quoted by Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 2:25:8)
f) Attestation from Tertullian (Scorpiace 15 - ca. 200AD)
g) Attestation from Origen (Contra Celsum 2:56,77 - ca. 230-250AD)

Appearances of Jesus to Paul and his conversion:
a) Early, multiple and eyewitness attestation from Paul himself (1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1, Phil. 3) (private experience used to claim leadership role, something he fights to maintain)
b) Multiple and early attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 9, 22, 26) (Paul's friend as author?)

Paul’s suffering/martyrdom:
a) Early, multiple and eyewitness attestation from Paul for his suffering (2 Cor. 11, Phil. 1)
b) Multiple and early attestation from Book of Acts (ch. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23)
c) Early attestation from Clement of Rome (1 Clement 5)
d) Attestation from Polycarp (Letter to the Philippians 9:2)
e) Attestation from Tertullian (Scorpiace 15 and also quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 2:25:8)
f) Attestation from Dionysius of Corinth (c. 170AD - quoted by Eusebius in EH 2:25:8)
g) Attestation from Origen (Commentary on Genesis as quoted by Eusebius in EH 3:1)

FACT 5. James, brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3) and sceptic of His claims before the appearance of Jesus to him, was transformed and became a leader in the Church in Jerusalem. He was reported as martyred.
a) Principle of Embarrassment applies as Jesus' own family and brother James were described as sceptical prior to appearances (multiply attested - Matthew 13:57, Mark 3:21, 6:3-4, John 7:4-5) (or slightly discredits apostles who were not fully in the Pauline group, or creates thematic consistency about belief, etc., etc., very subjective)
b) Jesus appeared alive to James after His death (early and enemy attestation from Paul - 1 Cor. 15:7) (already addressed)
c) James is later described as an apostle by Paul(Gal 1:19) and leader in the early church in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9,12 and Acts 15) (but Paul also says a few other things about James, and Peter)
d) Suffered and martyred - Enemy/neutral attestation from Josephus (ca. 96AD - Antiquities 20), further multiple attestation from Hegesippus (ca. 160AD - as quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 2:23), and Clement of Alexandria (ca. 180-200AD as quoted by Eusebius in EH 2:1).
ADDED:
h) If the proto-Ebionites originated in Jerusalem, then it is conceivable that Peter and James were leaders in the proto-Ebionite camp that would eventually break away from proto-Orthodox Christianity. Since they did not believe in a divine Jesus, this throws doubts on what James was converted to and what he died for.

Note that none of these 5 facts are supernatural or hard to believe on their own. They are all well attested with early and multiple sources. By any reasonable historical methodology these should be considered solid facts. Keep in mind on their own each fact presented does not build a strong case for the Rez. However, it is as a collective unit we must consider the evidence. We are looking for the best explanation that accounts for ALL the evidence. I posit the theory that God resurrected Jesus from the dead best accounts for ALL the evidence and combines explanatory power and scope given the context of Jesus' life and the claims made of Him and by Him.

Solid facts? Well attested? In a way I guess. All the evidence? Hmmm. Claims made by Jesus? Interesting.

Since there are probably competing versions of these events currently lost to history, the 'Rez' is simply the best theory to explain the events proposed by those who promoted the 'Rez' to begin with. If we could compare the arguments from other sides of the debate, we could make a more informed decision as to which is the best theory. The 5 'facts' presented might be found to be more complicated than imagined, only partially factual, or not factual at all.

Question for debate: Is the Resurrection the best explanation for ALL the evidence (i.e. the five facts presented)? Or, is there a better competing theory that accounts for ALL the evidence?

If you limit the 'facts' to those 5 and only accept currently available evidence, then possibly so. But there are too many important details being left off the scales to honestly say that the Rez is the best answer. By altering a few details in the New Testament, I can think of some more believable answers. I wouldn't want to build a personal philosophy on such shaky grounds.

[Goose]

Hi Littlepig,

Thanks for the well written and thought out post. It was one of the better ones in this thread. I wasn't sure of your objective as you came out swinging and then in your final points answered the question for debate rather reluctantly with what seemed to be endorsement of my position. It seemed as though your overall objective was to muddy the waters more than show the Rez to be false. Much of what you've presented in your opening however can be placed into the following categories. So I don't think I need to respond to everything you've presented.
1. Your personal viewpoints.
2. Rationalizing why we should accept speculation and ad hoc-ery (good word by the way) when determining the truth of an historical event.
3. Agreement between us.
4. Speculation about the mysterious and elusive other side of the story. Ebionites, Nazarenes, and the Gnostics. Essentially the thesis that there were competing Christianities. I noticed you provided no evidence for these theories so I don't feel they require much of a response. I'll chalk them up to wishful thinking and a priori biases at this stage.
5. Unsupported generalizations like "significant unknowns."
6. Previously addressed elsewhere in the thread (such as a bias toward the supernatural and methodologies for the supernatural)
7. Evaluating the NT in a historical vacuum.

There seems to have been a great deal of controversy about Christian doctrine and practice very soon after Jesus' death. That would be only natural considering that Jesus did not leave behind clear theology or teachings on how Christianity was supposed to be. In the accounts in Acts, issues surrounding Jews & Gentiles almost split the church. In various epistles we see this same crisis, and we also see what seem to be references to other 'deviant' practices and even gnostic versions of Christianity. Outside of the New Testament texts, we find references to other versions of Christianity that must have originated very early if not right alongside the version we see pictured in the New Testament texts. Interestingly enough, these other versions of Christianity, the Ebionites and various Gnostic groups, seem to diverge most significantly on the issue of the nature of Jesus, his death, and his resurrection, the very issue debated here in this thread. Maybe this is one of the primary motivations for the writing of the gospels we have now, to combat other versions of Jesus floating around at the time. That is apparently why the canon was formed, to combat those other versions of Christianity floating around via 'divergent' texts.

This is your main thrust I think - that there were competing Christianities and therefore competing ideas about the Resurrection. I disagree. Your opening sentence is is half false. There may well have been disagreements about practise such as the issue over circumcision. There may have even been sects that emerged as a result of this disagreement. Such as those that kept the Jewsih Law. However, if you have evidence that there was disagreement among the disciples over doctrine or more specifically the Rez, you should present it. Going from disagreement about circumcision and other minor issue to disagreement about the Rez is a non-sequitur.

You also said, "Outside of the New Testament texts, we find references to other versions of Christianity that must have originated very early if not right alongside the version we see pictured in the New Testament texts." However, that is simply an assumption. An assumption made worse by the fact that these texts "outside the New Testament" will likely be second century. What you need is some direct data from the first century concerning the treatment of the Rez with these "other versions of Christianity."

You have asserted that the Ebionites diverged on the issue of the Rez - that they did not believe it. Bart Erhman disagrees with you. According to Ehrman the Ebionites were from the second century and a Christian group that had an 'adoptionistic' view of Christ. He says the Ebionites believed the following regarding Jesus' death and Rez:

"This [Jesus] did in faithful obedience to his calling; God then honored this sacrifice by raising Jesus from the dead and exalting him up to heaven, where he still waits before returning as the judge of the earth." Bart Ehrhman, Misquoting Jesuspg. 155-156.

Further, the Ebionites denied Christ's divinity not the Rez and strictly held to Jewish Law. Most of what we know about them comes from the Church Fathers in the second century onward. They are only thought to be first alluded to by Justin Martyr in a Dialogue with Trypho written in 140AD. Irenaeus is the first to even coin the word "Ebionite" in 180AD. Irenaeus says of the Ebionites

"Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates." Against Heresies

Regarding Cerinthus beliefs Irenaeus tells us

"Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him, and at a distance from that Principality who is supreme over the universe, and ignorant of him who is above all. He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being." Against Heresies

The Ebionite's apparently believed in the Rez. We don't even know if they existed in the first century for sure. We can only speculate.


Regarding the Nazarenes. The sect of the Nazarenes are first mentioned in the Book of Acts 24. And they seem to be some type of Jewish sect here, not Christian. Further, Jesus never refers to his followers as Nazarenes nor Himself as a Nazarene. The early apostolic church also does not refer to itself as the Nazarenes. The Nazarenes by name only again emerge later in the writings of those such as Jerome (340-420AD) in the Epistle to Augustine. He tells us the Nazarenes, who Jerome seems to think are the Ebionites, had similar beliefs.

The adherents to this sect are known commonly as Nazarenes; they believe in Christ the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary; and they say that He who suffered under Pontius Pilate and rose again, is the same as the one in whom we believe. But while they desire to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither the one nor the other.

Epiphanius writing in the Refutation of All Heresiestells (375AD) tells us the Nazarenes believed in the resurrection of the dead.

As an additional point Jerome tells us in Against the Pelagians that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was used by the Nazarenes. Jerome also says in De Viris Illustribus that this Gospel affirms the Resurrection of Jesus.

The Nazarenes could have just as easily emerged after or entirely independent of the early Apostolic period. They also clearly did not reject the Rez but believed it. They were also reasonably orthodox.

Lastly, your attempts to muddy the waters introducing the Ebionites and Nazarenes would serve better in a debate over the divinity Jesus, not his resurrection. There's no early evidence to suggest the doctrine of the Rez was in question by the disciples. What you would need to do is show first century direct evidence that the Ebionites, Nazarenes, or Gnostics (or whoever) were either founded by Jesus or founded by a core group of dissenting disciples of Jesus. Without that you've got another pet theory, primarily rooted in conspiracy.

So we have an atmosphere of extreme controversy surrounding what Jesus really signified, which Christianity was true, and whether or not Jesus was physically raised from the dead, and I think we should take what we read in the New Testament with a lot of salt because it would only be natural for the writers to be very biased. This is something seen in the writings of the later church fathers, and there is no reason to think it would be absent in the texts in question. There is also the smaller consideration of pseudepigraphy which seems to have been a common occurrence during this time. Although not necessarily an indicator of a purely dishonest author, the pervasive notion that 'end-result' and 'impact' of a text might have priority over authenticity is something to keep in the back of one's head. These were not peer-reviewed documentaries dedicated to journalistic integrity. They were attempts to build religious community and define orthodox belief.

No, the early evidence we have does NOT suggest there was "extreme controversy" among the disciples and apostles surrounding Christ's Rez. This is more speculation and some creative license. If you have early evidence of this "extreme controversy" over the Rez you should present it. I think you are over playing the "extreme controversy" card here. Were there some controversies over certain fringe issues in the early church? Yes. Were they extreme? That's a matter of opinion.

Beyond this particular bias, we have the issue of the religious nature of the texts. As with other religious texts, we should not be surprised to find symbolism, metaphors, poetic treatments, hyperbole, and even purely invented myth. Overly coincidental or symbolic uses of numbers, thematic retellings of stories, dramatic moralizations of events, etc. should all be warning bells that what is being read may deviate from literal history. The problem with supernatural events has already been mentioned.

I agree. However, much of what you've cited is contained in other works of the period and doesn't make a text necessarily unhistorical (with the obvious exception of myth - which would need to be proven). I have no doubt the writers of the Gospels used literary techniques such as suspense and metaphors. However, being a religious text shouldn't disqualify a work unless of course one has a bias toward religious texts. The "overly coincidental" thesis has already been put forward in this thread. Coincidental can just as easily be explained as just that - coincidental. "Overly coincidental" is not only subjective but is more often than not an exaggeration when applied to the NT. I would say a better indicator or warning bell is direct verbatim copying in both word and context.

So the larger context of New Testament history and the nature of the writings themselves demands that we consider these texts differently from a conventional history of the period.

The problem of course with your line of reasoning here is that many of the other so called "conventional histories" of the period weren't very "conventional" either. Most, if not all, employed many of the "warning bells" you've cited. Many, such as Plutarch and Suetonius to name two, made reference to the supernatural. Many were written by entirely biased viewpoints and writers that clearly had an agenda.

... In the case of the New Testament, I don't think we have enough information to completely bridge the gap between ad hoc attempts and large-scale speculation to arrive at 'explanatory scope and power'. But I do think some interesting alternate stories can be imagined.

That's the whole problem Littlepig. I'm not interested in one's imagination of alternative stories. I want to know the truth or at least be as sure as possible about the truth. We do that by using transparent methodologies, evaluating the evidence we have, using reason, and logic. Not by imagining "alternative stories."



Regarding the facts presented:

Despite the problems I see with this approach to 'proving' Christianity via the 'Rez,' I will attempt to address the rest of your post in what small ways my amateur historical investigations allow. I have bolded the 'facts' below that I find questionable.

You are of course free to question the facts. But questioning them doesn't make them non-facts. I'll address only those you responded to.

FACT 2. The tomb was discovered empty

all evidence comes from the Pauline side of the debate

You are presenting an assumption based upon the theory that there was another side to the debate as evidence. If you have evidence from the "other side" you should present it.

b) Multiple attestation from all four Gospels (the very early Pre-Markan Passion source probably contained the empty tomb)

(speculation?)

No, it says right in the texts. If you have textural evidence that the empty tomb was not contained in Mark you should present it.

c) The disciples were accused of stealing Jesus’ body by unbelieving Jews - indirect

(or invented polemic)

Yeah, cuz those disciples were pretty cunning and thought of everything. That's why they would invent polemic that would cast doubt on their case.

d) The principle of embarrassment applies to the empty tomb reported as having been discovered by women

(Jesus is shown to honor women, very egalitarian movement for the time, thematic)

How would that be relevent to the point?

e) We have no record of Jesus’ corpse being produced only accusations that the disciples stole the body.

(We only have stories from one side of the argument)

By all means feel free to present the evidence from this mysterious other side.

f) Setting the stage for the empty tomb was the honourable burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimethea (another fact we could admit as number 6 - but won't as it isn't really necessary to do so). It is attested by all four Gospels. As well Paul mentions the burial of Jesus(1 Cor 15). It also is strengthened by the Principle of Embarrassment where a Jewish member of the council, rather than a disciple or family member, that condemned Jesus was reported as honourably burring Jesus. This would have been offensive to the disciples and as such is unlikely to be a fabrication.

(or invented or altered for polemic - respected witness of burial, these kinds of things can go lots of ways)

Why would they invent an embarrassing polemic? That would be counter productive. If they were inventing respected witnesses of the burial, they should have used a disciple if it was being written to meet the needs of the Christian community. Any textural evidence it was altered here? Or is that just something one says.

ADDED:
g) Ebionite and Gnostic Christians for some reason believed Jesus was not physically raised from the dead despite originating very close in time and geography to the earliest group of Christians. This could be due to Jesus not being buried in a tomb, Jesus' body not disappearing from the tomb, or no experience of later appearances by Jesus. The physical resurrection could be a theological development that arose as groups diverged.

I'd like to see the evidence from primary texts to support this. Without that all you've got is a pet theory. Further, how does the belief of the Ebionites and Gnostics prove the Rez false? This seems more like a Red Herring than anything else.

FACT 3. The apostles sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead and then appeared to them. So sincerely that some were willing to endure persecution and possibly even death because of this belief:

(we do not know they died in defense of the physical resurrection)

Read 1 Clement 5. Besides, the Rez is the key to their belief. If they died for their belief, they died for their belief that Jesus was the Christ and Son of God as proven by the Rez. The Rez was part of early sermons by Peter and Paul found in Acts and clearly part of the package of beliefs in early first century Christianity.

Claims of appearances to the disciples:
a) Early (and enemy) attestation from Paul (1 Cor. 15:4-8)

(private experience used to claim leadership role, something he fights to maintain)

I disagree it was a private experience. At least Act's doesn't record it that way. However, even if it was, so what? Many writers record private experiences. "Fights to maintain" is your spin.

b) Multiple attestation from all four Gospels (even without the later addition of 16:9-20, early attestation in Mark's Gospel predicts the Rez and appearances in 8:31, 9:31, 10:34 and suggests there will be appearances made by Jesus 14:28, 16:6-7)

(We only have stories from one side of the argument)

And telling us this is meaningless. If you have evidence from the other side of the argument you should present it.

c) Multiple attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 1-5, 10, 13, 17)

(Same author as Luke, no need to mention twice)

Fair point.

f) The Principle of Dissimilarity applies to the notion of a man/Messiah resurrecting from the dead before the end of time was contrary to Jewish belief and therefore reduces the odds it was "made up."

(hey, where does all that crazy gnsotic stuff come from?)

What crazy gnostic stuff would that be?

g) Principle of Embarrassment applies to the evidence that some disciples at the first instance did not believe but had doubts that Jesus was alive (Matthew 28:17, Luke 24:36-38, John 20:24-25).

(or slightly discredits apostles who were not fully in the Pauline group, or creates thematic consistency about belief, etc., etc., very subjective)

Or the simple and most obvious answer is the authors were being honest and recording the events as they were. Not everything has to be a conspiracy Littlepig.

ADDED:
g) Ebionite and Gnostic Christians for some reason believed Jesus was not literally raised from the dead. This could be due to no experience of later appearances by Jesus.

This is incorrect regarding the Ebionites as I've demonstrated above. I'll note that Christian Gnostic texts (along with the evidence for Ebionites) emerged in the second century. But even if your theory is correct how would that prove the Rez and the experiences of the disciples false? It wouldn't. You would still need to explain away the evidence we have for the Pauline side of the story.

h) The Ebionites apparently rejected Paul as an apostate but may have accepted other apostles as closer to their own position. This is reminiscent of the Paul vs Circmcision Group debate. It could very well be that the proto-Ebionites were part of or similar to the Circumcision Group. If James and Peter were more aligned with this group as Paul seems to indicate, then they may also have been more closely aligned with the Ebionite understanding of Jesus as opposed to their representation in later gospels aimed primarily at Pauline Christians. I suspect there was a wide range of views held by the earliest Christians, and they were probably all loosely mingling together until lines were firmly drawn to distinguish particular heresies.

Paul was never treated as heretical by the early church. What the Ebionites thought of him is irrelevant. You're trying to suggest that because their was debate over circumcision, minor issues, and who should receive the gospel that there was also debate over the Rez. That is one big non-sequitur. "I suspect" is not very convincing especially considering the early evidence suggests the disciples and core leadership were in harmony on core doctrines such as the Rez.

Appearances of Jesus to Paul and his conversion:
b) Multiple and early attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 9, 22, 26)

(Paul's friend as author?)

This is a problem because...

FACT 5. James, brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3) and sceptic of His claims before the appearance of Jesus to him, was transformed and became a leader in the Church in Jerusalem. He was reported as martyred.
a) Principle of Embarrassment applies as Jesus' own family and brother James were described as sceptical prior to appearances (multiply attested - Matthew 13:57, Mark 3:21, 6:3-4, John 7:4-5)

(or slightly discredits apostles who were not fully in the Pauline group, or creates thematic consistency about belief, etc., etc., very subjective0

Or the simple and most obvious answer is the authors were being honest and recording the events as they were. Not everything has to be a conspiracy Littlepig.

c) James is later described as an apostle by Paul(Gal 1:19) and leader in the early church in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9,12 and Acts 15)

(but Paul also says a few other things about James, and Peter)

Unless it's that James was NOT an apostle or leader in the Church you've presented a Red Herring.

ADDED:
h) If the proto-Ebionites originated in Jerusalem, then it is conceivable that Peter and James were leaders in the proto-Ebionite camp that would eventually break away from proto-Orthodox Christianity. Since they did not believe in a divine Jesus, this throws doubts on what James was converted to and what he died for.

Lot's of speculation there. No one really seems to know when or where the Ebionites originated. In fact, the direct evidence we have would suggest they emerged in the second century.

Since there are probably competing versions of these events currently lost to history,..

I'm sorry Littlepig, that doesn't fly around here. We can speculate on the evidence we don't have all day. That accomplishes nothing. It demonstrates you have no real counter evidence to offer.

...the 'Rez' is simply the best theory to explain the events proposed by those who promoted the 'Rez' to begin with...

That we can agree on.

... If we could compare the arguments from other sides of the debate, we could make a more informed decision as to which is the best theory. The 5 'facts' presented might be found to be more complicated than imagined, only partially factual, or not factual at all.

Ah yes, the ever elusive "arguments from other sides." That's an all to convenient way to dismiss the evidence we do have. When you find the arguments or more specifically the evidence that supports those arguments from the other side, let me know.

Question for debate: Is the Resurrection the best explanation for ALL the evidence (i.e. the five facts presented)? Or, is there a better competing theory that accounts for ALL the evidence?

If you limit the 'facts' to those 5 and only accept currently available evidence, then possibly so. But there are too many important details being left off the scales to honestly say that the Rez is the best answer...

Would you consider it rational to draw important historical conclusions on evidence that doesn't exist? I don't. I draw my conclusions on the evidence that DOES exist and is currently available. If you happen across the evidence for those important details that have been left out, I would be interested to see them. If you have other facts you would like to submit through the methodology that you believe would change the outcome feel free to present them.

...By altering a few details in the New Testament, I can think of some more believable answers. I wouldn't want to build a personal philosophy on such shaky grounds.

Perhaps, you perceive it as "shaky" because you give too much credence to speculation rich conspiracy theories that have trouble drumming up any substantial evidence.

[The Duke of Vandals]

This is your main thrust I think - that there were competing Christianities and therefore competing ideas about the Resurrection. I disagree.

Well, you're wrong.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... -plea.html

• ... for we acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (nous kai logos) of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [nous], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [logikos]; but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things...

Emphasis mine.

The above was written by Athenagoras of Athens circa 175 ce. It's part of his essay titled "A Plea for the Christians". It was intended for the eyes of the emperor of Rome and the Alexandrian church. So rest assured this wasn't some whack job living in a cave just making up nonsense.

The above text is the closest Athenagoras ever comes to mentioning Jesus. He never calls him by name. He doesn't mention the virgin birth or the three wise men. He doesn't talk about the sermon on the mount or Pilate or Judas or Mary or Lazarus or any of the stories that are attributed to Jesus. Including the resurrection.

It proves that there were, in fact, many competing ideas about the resurrection... even as far on as the late second century. Nor were they the works of individual heretics or whack jobs.

What this tells me is that your actual knowledge of historical events during the fist and second century is lacking. You need to look at sources that don't assume the rez took place and then try to justify it.

By the way, this is a test. If you pass it, I'll take back the douche rocket comment.

[Flail]

The Resurrection wasn't all that important even to Jesus...if it occurred, it was to prove that He was indeed God. None of the 12 disciples even believed it. Jesus rebuked(scolded them) and then got right back to telling them what was the essence of his teachings...reminding them that it was the parables and teachings that they were to focus upon....he never told them to start a Church or Religion...mentions no ritual practices...sends them to homes and communities instead of churches with his message of universal, non-judgmental salvation and anti-religious teachings.

Paul was a self appointed apostle who did not know Jesus. Paul started Christianity decades after Jesus died and barely mentions Jesus teachings. Instead, Paul's sole focus was on ritual,worship,prayer and the concocted notion of 'grace'. Paul's teachings were included in the Bible 400 years after the fact because Constantine and the Counsel could not build a popular Religion on the anti-religious teachings of Jesus. So we have very little in the Bible from Jesus other than the 4 Gospels which constitute about 2% of the Bible and less than 10% of the New Testament. There is more mention of Jesus in the Koran than in the Bible.

Jesus is not a Christian. Get up from your knees and do good works and help others absent the evil of self righteousness. There is no one to judge and no one to hate.

[Goose]

This is your main thrust I think - that there were competing Christianities and therefore competing ideas about the Resurrection. I disagree.

Well, you're wrong.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... -plea.html

• ... for we acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (nous kai logos) of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [nous], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [logikos]; but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things...

Emphasis mine.

He's giving a theological and doctrinal position of Christians, not a historical lesson. Can't you tell the difference? He tells us this in the opening of his next section "If I go minutely into the particulars of our doctrine, let it not surprise you."

Here's the whole quote.

CHAP. X.--THE CHRISTIANS WORSHIP THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST.

That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being--I have sufficiently demonstrated. [I say "His Logos"], for we acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (nous kai logos) of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [nous], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [logikos]; but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter. The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. "The Lord," it says, "made me, the beginning of His ways to His works." The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists? Nor is our teaching in what relates to the divine nature confined to these points; but we recognise also a multitude of angels and ministers, whom God the Maker and Framer of the world distributed and ap pointed to their several posts by His Logos, to occupy themselves about the elements, and the heavens, and the world, and the things in it, and the goodly ordering of them all.

If you can find anything that is a severe deviation from first century doctrine in the above quote, show us.

Duke has underlined and highlighted the following part as he thinks this is the clincher; For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son.

If we read it in context, Athenagoras is saying Christian mode of thinking is different from the poets idea of the the gods and men, NOT different from other Christians. Athenagoras is NOT telling us there are different Christianities (though there probably were by the time he was writing) but a difference between Christianity and others.

The above text is the closest Athenagoras ever comes to mentioning Jesus...

Except when he quotes Jesus a few sentences later.

CHAP. XI.--THE MORAL TEACHING OF THE CHRISTIANS REPELS THE CHARGE BROUGHT AGAINST THEM.

If I go minutely into the particulars of our doctrine, let it not surprise you. It is that you may not be carried away by the popular and irrational opinion, but may have the truth clearly before you. For presenting the opinions themselves to which we adhere, as being not human but uttered and taught by God, we shall be able to persuade you not to think of us as atheists. What, then, are those teachings in which we are brought up? "I say unto you, Love your enemies; bless them that curse you; pray for them that persecute you; that ye may be the sons of your Father who is in heaven, who causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust." ...

cf. Matthew 5:44-45

But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, so that you will become children of your Father in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and the good, and he lets rain fall on the righteous and the unrighteous.(ISV)

...He never calls him by name. He doesn't mention the virgin birth or the three wise men. He doesn't talk about the sermon on the mount or Pilate or Judas or Mary or Lazarus or any of the stories that are attributed to Jesus. Including the resurrection.

Duke's up to his old tricks, or should I say his old arguments from silence. He seems to think a Christian writing in 175AD is a reliable historical source for the first century. Why does he reject sources closer to the events then?

It proves that there were, in fact, many competing ideas about the resurrection... even as far on as the late second century. Nor were they the works of individual heretics or whack jobs.

Even if you were correct about Athenagoras it would prove that in the late second century there were competing ideas. It doesn't prove there were competing ideas in the apostolic period within the core of the disciples or early church. Nice try though.

What this tells me is that your actual knowledge of historical events during the fist and second century is lacking. You need to look at sources that don't assume the rez took place and then try to justify it.

Athenagoras wasn't in a position to KNOW whether the resurrection took place.

By the way, this is a test. If you pass it, I'll take back the douche rocket comment.

It's ok Duke. I didn't bother me - water off a duck's (goose's) back. I've been called worse. I chalked it up to you not taking your meds that day.

[LittlePig]

Goose

Thanks for the well written and thought out post. It was one of the better ones in this thread. I wasn't sure of your objective as you came out swinging and then in your final points answered the question for debate rather reluctantly with what seemed to be endorsement of my position.

I came out swinging on the parts I felt were important.

Endorsement? No. There was some sarcasm there. But I do propose alternate theories of New Testament history with reluctance. It requires too much speculation, and I am too uninformed to make serious proposals in which put any 'faith.'

It seemed as though your overall objective was to muddy the waters more than show the Rez to be false. Much of what you've presented in your opening however can be placed into the following categories. So I don't think I need to respond to everything you've presented.

I think it was less muddying the waters than attempting to acknowledge the silt already floating around in your spring water. But you say tomato, and so do I, just a little differently.

1. Your personal viewpoints.

Hey now, those are some great personal view points.

2. Rationalizing why we should accept speculation and ad hoc-ery (good word by the way) when determining the truth of an historical event.

I think 'acknowledge' is better than 'accept.'

3. Agreement between us.
4. Speculation about the mysterious and elusive other side of the story. Ebionites, Nazarenes, and the Gnostics. Essentially the thesis that there were competing Christianities. I noticed you provided no evidence for these theories so I don't feel they require much of a response. I'll chalk them up to wishful thinking and a priori biases at this stage.

No. I think you are aware of the situation, and I'm not writing a thesis for publication. The church fathers spent a lot of time arguing against heresy, and there are accounts of doctrinal division in Acts and the epistles. It may be speculation to connect the Ebionites with the Circumcision Group (although not much of a stretch), but the early presence of, at the very least, divergent Christian groups hardly seems 'wishful thinking' and 'a priori.'

5. Unsupported generalizations like "significant unknowns."

How much do we know about the Ebionites and the Gnostics? Other than recent discoveries of Gnostic writings, it is mostly limited to the rebuttals and descriptions from the church fathers, right? And they don't have the best record of accurately representing the heresies they attack. I'd call those significant unknowns.

And I don't even get into significant unknowns that we can't document. With a one-sided supernatural pedigree, I suspect there are many pertinent details that are unknown. Joseph Smith provided us an eye-witness account of having seen Jesus and other supernatural events. And in his case I also suspect there are pertinent details not available to us that would shape our understanding of his amazing claims. Although to a lesser degree, I also suspect similar problems with the stories of Muhammad's life that began Islam.

As claims to the supernatural are typically shrouded in unknowns, I don't think we should ignore the signifinant ones we are aware of in New Testament history.

6. Previously addressed elsewhere in the thread (such as a bias toward the supernatural and methodologies for the supernatural)

I recall your other attempts at dismissing supernatrual bias. I did not think they were realistic or convincing. And I suspect that most Christians harbor a similar 'bias' toward the supernatural claims of other traditions (and even the non-canonical ones of their own). This is a major issue that you should address, and I'm disappointed that you dismiss it so casually.

7. Evaluating the NT in a historical vacuum.

Vacuum? I prefer 'dimly lit room.'

This is your main thrust I think - that there were competing Christianities and therefore competing ideas about the Resurrection. I disagree. Your opening sentence is is half false. There may well have been disagreements about practise such as the issue over circumcision. There may have even been sects that emerged as a result of this disagreement. Such as those that kept the Jewsih Law. However, if you have evidence that there was disagreement among the disciples over doctrine or more specifically the Rez, you should present it. Going from disagreement about circumcision and other minor issue to disagreement about the Rez is a non-sequitur.

The non-sequitur you mention was not my claim, But I'm probably wrong on the Ebionite position on the Rez. I'll get to that further down. If the Ebionites had their origin in the Circumcision Group, denied Christ's divinity, and demanded adherence to the Law, I'd say that is a competing Christianity. Obviously there is no way of knowing how far back those ideas go, but that also does not preclude the possibility that they were there at the beginning. The description we have of the development of the early church comes from Acts and is aimed at Paul's audience. And even that seems to disagree with some of Paul's description of the circumcision conflict by coating it with some shiny gloss and a victorious church going into all the world. And according to your historical criteria, Paul's statements rank higher in credibility than Luke's.

As for sects arising that kept the Jewish Law, from the picture in Acts it appears that all the early disciples kept the Jewish Law. It was only later that it was discovered that the Law was unnecessary and that the Gentiles didn't need to be circumcised. If anything came later, it would have been the sharper distinction between the two groups, not the emergence of Law revivalists. What reason do we have to believe the Circumcision Group ever disappeared? Where did they go?

You also said, "Outside of the New Testament texts, we find references to other versions of Christianity that must have originated very early if not right alongside the version we see pictured in the New Testament texts." However, that is simply an assumption. An assumption made worse by the fact that these texts "outside the New Testament" will likely be second century. What you need is some direct data from the first century concerning the treatment of the Rez with these "other versions of Christianity."

Assumption, speculation, sure. That's what has to be done to provide a different story. 'Made worse?' Why is a 2nd Century reference a bad thing? It's not like the claim of other competing groups absolutely contradicts the picture in Acts, epistles, or the church fathers and would need to be discarded. If you mean that a 2nd century reference signifies that the groups in question arose in the 2nd century, I think that is an assumption for your position. I think 2nd century combatting by church fathers only signifies that the groups were significantly strong at the time to be considered a threat. If they were alluded to in 140, then they more than likely were around at the end of the 1st century. This puts them awfully close to where I'm saying they could have been. My dotted line here is very short. But it is accurate to say that I cannot associate the Rez claim.

You have asserted that the Ebionites diverged on the issue of the Rez - that they did not believe it. Bart Erhman disagrees with you. According to Ehrman the Ebionites were from the second century and a Christian group that had an 'adoptionistic' view of Christ.

I think the term 'Ebionite' would more rightly be a 2nd century term, so that's why I sometimes said 'proto-Ebionite' to refer to whatever they were prior to getting their label.

Lastly, your attempts to muddy the waters introducing the Ebionites and Nazarenes would serve better in a debate over the divinity Jesus, not his resurrection. There's no early evidence to suggest the doctrine of the Rez was in question by the disciples. What you would need to do is show first century direct evidence that the Ebionites, Nazarenes, or Gnostics (or whoever) were either founded by Jesus or founded by a core group of dissenting disciples of Jesus. Without that you've got another pet theory, primarily rooted in conspiracy.

Well, if you discount supernatural appearances, no one has a claim of Jesus founding whatever version of Christianity they belonged to. And if there is a connection between the Ebionites and the Circumcision Group, well, there is your core group of 'dissenting' disciples.

And here's where my ignorance comes out. I warned you that my investigations were amateurish, and that's not false humility. That's honest recognition of my unexpert opinions.

Firstly I wasn't arguing that the Ebionites didn't believe in any resurrection. I speculated that they believed in a spiritual resurrection rather than a physical one. I have read that the Ebionites may have considered post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus to have been spiritual or visions of some kind rather than a bodily appearance. But I cannot source that with a church father, so it may have been a speculation of an author that I assumed to be sourced. So the Rez element of my pet hypothesis just got weaker.

But it should also be noted that your quotes from church fathers don't show that the resurrection they believed in was a physical one. And even if it was explicitly stated as such, considering how mistaken the church fathers were on the Gnostics leaves room for speculation, especially on such a subtle issue. Didn't I mention something about unknowns?

Also, I didn't bring up the Nazarenes which, from my understanding, are not necessarily the same thing as the early Ebionites. It is thought that the church fathers may have lumped multiple groups under that label.

No, the early evidence we have does NOT suggest there was "extreme controversy" among the disciples and apostles surrounding Christ's Rez. This is more speculation and some creative license. If you have early evidence of this "extreme controversy" over the Rez you should present it. I think you are over playing the "extreme controversy" card here. Were there some controversies over certain fringe issues in the early church? Yes. Were they extreme? That's a matter of opinion.

Well, whether or not Jesus was God might be considered extreme. A divergent understanding of atonement and a requirement to practice the Law might be considered extreme. Considering Paul to be an apostate might be considered extreme. Paul didn't consider the Law issue to be 'fringe.' He considered it rather central. A differing view on the Rez, however, would not be extreme and would actually be a rather benign variation. Spiritual vs physical is a subtle doctrinal difference, well within the range of 'aberrant' views alluded to in the epistles.

I won't 'overplay' it by saying a spiritual Rez must have been what they believed, but I still think there is enormous room for speculation. I'm sure that not all of the pre-crucifixion disciples of Jesus wound up in line with what the Pauline side taught. I doubt everyone believed the Rez claims, and we are told that a great many Jews did not. I suspect some of them may have actually had good reasons not to rather than simply being 'hard of heart.'

(Me)
Beyond this particular bias, we have the issue of the religious nature of the texts. As with other religious texts, we should not be surprised to find symbolism, metaphors, poetic treatments, hyperbole, and even purely invented myth. Overly coincidental or symbolic uses of numbers, thematic retellings of stories, dramatic moralizations of events, etc. should all be warning bells that what is being read may deviate from literal history. The problem with supernatural events has already been mentioned.

Goose
I agree. However, much of what you've cited is contained in other works of the period and doesn't make a text necessarily unhistorical (with the obvious exception of myth - which would need to be proven). I have no doubt the writers of the Gospels used literary techniques such as suspense and metaphors. However, being a religious text shouldn't disqualify a work unless of course one has a bias toward religious texts. The "overly coincidental" thesis has already been put forward in this thread. Coincidental can just as easily be explained as just that - coincidental. "Overly coincidental" is not only subjective but is more often than not an exaggeration when applied to the NT. I would say a better indicator or warning bell is direct verbatim copying in both word and context.

I think any time we see those religious treatments of a story, we should assume them to be less historical for it. I'd say that applies to other texts of the time also. It does not mean there is no accurate historical information in the text, but it does mean the telling of the story has been heavily shaped for a purpose. If I were to simply recount the events of the day, it would probably sound like a current news story full of banalities and quirky, inconvenient characters and events. Heavily stylized, overly dramatic, paired down, cartoonish portrayals of events that lay out 'facts' and characters to fit a theme and doctrinal purposes should be looked at very critically. And when it comes to polished art, coincidence should never be taken lightly.

I don't think verbatim copying of text is an issue here except that it may slim down the 'witness' count. However, it might be a real concern for 'inspiration' when that gets thrown on top of the heap that's piled on the Rez foundation.

The problem of course with your line of reasoning here is that many of the other so called "conventional histories" of the period weren't very "conventional" either. Most, if not all, employed many of the "warning bells" you've cited. Many, such as Plutarch and Suetonius to name two, made reference to the supernatural. Many were written by entirely biased viewpoints and writers that clearly had an agenda.

Yes, and I would have to take those issues into account for those texts also. It's not that I'm denying there can be any history to the New Testament texts. That's the extreme on the other side of the room from your extreme position.

That's the whole problem Littlepig. I'm not interested in one's imagination of alternative stories. I want to know the truth or at least be as sure as possible about the truth. We do that by using transparent methodologies, evaluating the evidence we have, using reason, and logic. Not by imagining "alternative stories."

That is much of the whole problem, Goose. You want to force a conclusion out of inconclusive history that will secure your worldview. History, especially ancient history, just isn't a good place to look for proof of the supernatural. Maybe God should have thought about that before he decided everyone should be required to believe based on such shifting shadows. If you really want truth, maybe you should critically examine every other srange proposition that you 'hang' on the Rez and see if it can withstand the weight. Is your philosophy a holistic one? Does it really get you the 'truth' you are after?

As for the rebuttals of my rebuttals of your 'facts,' that's all subjective, and we could go back and forth forever without proving anything. Trying to read the intentions and nuance of ancient texts is a fountain of fantasy when it gets to the details. But I think this is a good last comment on which to end this post.

Or the simple and most obvious answer is the authors were being honest and recording the events as they were. Not everything has to be a conspiracy Littlepig.

It would be nice if truth were always simple and obvious, but I don't rely on it to be so. And I hardly see everything as a conspiracy. Maybe an analagous situation is better found in the assassination of JFK than any Caesar crossing his Rubicon. That is a historical question replete with conspiracy theory, and the only 'magic' involved is with a bouncy bullet.

Despite the recent and very public nature of the event, despite an abundance of witnesses and evidence of all sorts, despite cameras and lie detectors and sophisticated, modern understandings of history and evidence, we cannot get a conclusive answer on what went down that day in Dealey Plaza. I live walking distance from where Oswald was arrested outside of the Texas Theater. I could conceivably re-interview many of the eye-witnesses and people who knew Oswald because many are still alive. I have walked the grassy knoll. But hard as I try to figure it all out, I most likely will only walk away with one of many positions and no real surety of having the actual truth.

People can and do take a very wide range of positions on the issue. Some say that Oswald was the assassin and worked alone. Some say it was half our government using multiple secret operatives and using Oswald as a patsy. Me, I'm in the middle, kind of like I am on the Rez issue. There's some funny business for sure, but I'm also sure we can imagine a lot more than what is really there. You, on the other hand, would be like those who say the Warren Commission had it figured out and would like to ignore the fact that they didn't have all the information at the time and suspiciously locked some of it away for fear of conroversy. You may want a simple truth, but life isn't typically so clean and tidy.

Despite the cheesiness of throwing out a pop-culture tag-line as a summary of this discussion, I can only say 'The truth is out there.' I just don't think it is going to be found in the Rez. But at least we can both be sure that it wasn't the Smoking Man who snuck away with the body of Jesus.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Athenagoras wasn't in a position to KNOW whether the resurrection took place.

Then who was? Please give specific information as to how they would have known and evidence that they actually existed.

Also, you failed the test.

[The Nice Centurion]

In my opinion, when determining the truthfulness of Christianity virtually everything is secondary in importance to the resurrection of Jesus Christ (the Rez). Paul made this clear when he said in 1 Corinthians 15:14, "if Christ has not been raised, then our message means nothing and your faith means nothing." I believe the truthfulness of Christianity hangs primarily on the Rez.

Paul , of course, was speaking to people who had converted to Christianity and scoffed at the idea that God would choose to raise a corpse.

Paul regards the whole idea of discussing how a corpse is raised as idiotic, and reminds the Jesus-worshippers that the body that is planted is not the body that is sown.

Paul reminds them that heavenly things are as different from earthly things as a fish is different to the moon.

Nobody thinks a fish turns into the moon.

So why were the idiot Corinthians discussing how a corpse can turn into a resurrected being?

Paul heaps scorn on the idea that resurrected beings are made of the dust that a corpse dissolves into.

The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God....

Paul goes on to contrast God breathing life into dead matter (and so creating Adam), with what happened to Jesus , who became a life-giving spirit.

In short, Paul simply has no idea that a corpse was supposed to be raised from the ground.

Or else he would have rubbed the converts to Jesus-worshipper's noses in stories of corpses rising from the ground.

Instead, he regards them as stupid for even discussing how corpses can rise.

Because Paul was smart enough to realize:
NITPICKING IS GREATEST ENEMY TO COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

In my thread about the mechanics and details of The Resurrection no one wants to debate the topic.

The thread received more than a hundred posts, though.

Why are not only the cocgnitive dissonant but EVERYONE in general, repulsive to shatter cognitive dissonance